SPE 57439

A Simulation-Based Spreadsheet Program for History Matching and Forecasting Shale

Gas Production
W. K. Sawyer, SPE, Holditch - Reservoir Technologies, M. D. Zuber, SPE, Holditch - Reservoir Technologies, and J. R.
Williamson, SPE, Holditch - Reservoir Technologies

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and
Exhibition held in Charleston, West Virginia, 21-22 October 1999.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper discusses the development and application of an
Excel spreadsheet program for history matching and
forecasting gas production from shale wells in the
Appalachian, Michigan, or Illinois basin. The program is
simulation-based and uses 1,000 to 3,000 simulation runs to a
maximum time of 30 years. The simulation runs are made
using a matrix of key reservoir parameters specific to the area
of study. The output gas and water production from the
simulation runs is incorporated into a worksheet in such a
manner that any single forecast may be easily selected. The
user selects a combination of input parameters from dropdown menus, and graphs of simulated gas and water
production are instantly generated on the main worksheet
screen.
Observed gas and water production data are entered into a
separate worksheet for history matching and are plotted
together with the simulated data. On the main worksheet, the
drop-down menus are used to find the simulation input
parameters that result in the best overall history match. Once
a match is obtained, the user may easily export the 30-year
simulated gas forecast for economic analysis.
This tool provides a simple method to quickly analyze
short-term production data when no other means is available.
Also, this tool can be easily adapted to different geological
settings including shales, coals, and sandstones.

Introduction
Over the past 10 to 15 years spreadsheet software, including
EXCEL, has evolved to such an extent that it is now
possible to create very powerful spreadsheet programs
without tedious line-by-line code development.
These
programs can include high-quality graphics and complicated
mathematical functions.
With the use of macros and display boxes,1 modern
spreadsheet software provides the capability for a userfriendly interface with little or no programming. Hence
commercial application software can be developed in
EXCEL or other spreadsheet products.
In reservoir engineering we often history match single-well
production data using a reservoir simulator. This involves
four steps: preparing an ASCII file with time and daily or
monthly rate and cumulative production of each flowing
phase, setting up an input dataset containing a description of
the reservoir under study, making multiple (often 20 or more)
simulation runs with different combinations of parameters, and
preparing graphs of simulated and actual data. This is, at best,
a very tedious, time-consuming process.
Once this spreadsheet is set up for a particular geologic
setting, it simplifies the process of history matching. A userfriendly interface is provided to allow the engineer to quickly
compare observed gas and water production to simulated data.
A reservoir simulator is not required.
Description of Software
The software we developed is simulation-based and
incorporates the results of several thousand simulations into a
user-friendly Excel spreadsheet for comparison with actual
production data. Specific values of key reservoir parameters
controlling production are defined for making the simulation
runs and FORTRAN pre- and post-processors are used to assist
in generating the simulator input files and in preparing
simulated production forecasts in a convenient format for use
in the spreadsheet.
Each spreadsheet is designed for a specific geologic target.
Some properties are fixed for the simulation runs. These

W. K. SAWYER, M. D. ZUBER, J. R. WILLIAMSON

include PVT properties, relative permeability curves and shale

matrix porosity and permeability. For each history matching
parameter, two to five values are used that cover the expected
range of variability.
All combinations of the history matching parameters are
used in making the simulation runs. Table 1 shows an
example in which six parameters are varied. The total number
of simulations required is the product of the number of values
selected for each parameter. The overall process consists of
four major components: pre-processing, simulation, postprocessing, and importing data into the spreadsheet. Each of
these components will be discussed in detail.
TABLE 1 EXAMPLE OF VARIABLE PARAMETERS
FOR SIMULATION RUNS

Area
(acres)
40
80
120
160

Pressure
(psia)
250
350
450
550

Initial
Water
Saturation
(percent)
100
80

Porosity
(percent)
0.1
0.3
1.0

Permeability
(md)
1
2
4
10
20

Natural
Fracture
Spacing
(ft)
1
3
6
12
20

Pre-Processing Module. The first major step in developing

the simulation-based spreadsheet program is to determine a set
of input parameters for the simulation runs, as discussed
above. The specific parameters and values for each parameter
are defined in an ASCII file (Params.inp) as shown in Table 1.
A FORTRAN pre-processor reads the Params.inp file and a
template input file for the reservoir simulator that is going to
be used. Fig. 1 shows a flowchart of the complete preprocessing module, which is controlled by the Batch
Command File INSIM.BAT. The FORTRAN pre-processor
uses the Template.sim file and generates a simulator input file
for each combination of the variable parameters. For example,
with the variable parameters shown in Table 1, a total of
2,400 simulator input files would be generated.
INSIM.BAT

SPE 57439

file generated. This record begins with a run number and

includes the variable parameters used for that run. Some key
fixed variables such as shale matrix porosity and permeability
are also included in this file.
In addition to generating the simulator input files and the
Params.prn file, the FORTRAN pre-processor also generates
two large batch files (Fig. 1) that are used for further
processing. The use of these batch files is discussed below.
Simulation Module. The second step in the development of
the spreadsheet application is to run the simulator for each of
the input files generated. This is accomplished by executing
the batch file RUNSIM.BAT, which is generated by the input
processor (Fig. 1). Fig. 2 shows a flowchart of the simulation
module. When RUNSIM.BAT is executed, the simulator is
run using the first input file, which is named a0001.sim. Each
simulator input file generated by the pre-processor is executed
sequentially by RUNSIM.BAT. This is normally a 3- to 12hour run, depending on the number of simulations to be run.
The simulator used for the runs in this paper was Shalegas,2
which gas been used in several studies of shale reservoirs
throughout the U.S.3,4
RUNSIM.BAT

aooo1.sim
aooo2.sim
:
:
:
:

Reservoir
Simulator

aooo1.out
aooo2.out
:
:
:
:

Fig. 2 Flowchart of the simulation module.

Post-Processing Module. Fig. 3 shows the flowchart for the

post-processing module. Each simulation run generates a
large ASCII file (e.g., a0001.out) that contains pressure and
saturation arrays, well reports, summary tables, and other
general information regarding the simulation run. This file
must be read and processed to obtain production-versus-time
data suitable for use in the spreadsheet program.
OUTSIM.BAT

Params.inp
Template.sim

Fortran
Pre - Processor

Params.prn
RUNSIM.BAT
OUTSIM.BAT
Simulator Input Files
aooo1.sim
aooo2.sim
:
:
:
:

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the pre-processing module.

The pre-processor also generates a Params.prn file (Fig. 1)

which is designed for input to the spreadsheet program. The
Params.prn file consists of one record for each simulator input

Time.dat
aooo1.out
aooo2.out
:
:
:
:

Fortran
Post - Processing

Summary.out
Simdata.prn

Fig. 3 Flowchart of the post-processing module.

A FORTRAN program reads the .out files and processes the

production rate and cumulative production data. The result is
a file called Simdata.prn (Fig. 3) which consists of four

SPE 57439 A SIMULATION SPREADSHEET PROGRAM FOR HISTORY MATCHING AND FORECASTING SHALE GAS PRODUCTION

records for each simulation run. These four records contain

gas and water rate and cumulative production at a set of predetermined times that are specified in the file Time.dat (Fig.
3). The times are closely spaced during the first few months
and increase to 180 days, giving 91 points of production
versus time data over a 30-year period.
The post-processor also generates a Summary.out file (Fig.
3) which consists of one record for each simulation run. This
file contains 30-year gas and water production and cumulative
material balances for each run. The Simdata.prn file is used
for checking and debugging to be certain that all simulations
were successfully executed.
Once post-processing is
successfully completed, the Simdata.prn (Fig. 3) file and the
Params.prn file (Fig. 1) are ready to be imported into the
spreadsheet program.
Importing Data Into the Spreadsheet. Fig. 4 shows a
flowchart of the Excel spreadsheet program. The Params.prn
file from the pre-processor and the Simdata.prn file from the
post-processor are ASCII text files that are imported into
appropriate worksheets for history matching and forecasting.
Figs. 5 and 6 show portions of the worksheets containing the
imported data. Fig. 5 shows the first few records of the
Params.prn file.
Params.prn
Simdata.prn
Obsdata.prn

Excel Spreadsheet
for
History Matching and
Forecasting

Graphic
Rate and Cum
Plots

Forecast.out

Fig. 4 Flowchart of the spreadsheet program.

Actual production data must also be imported into a

worksheet within the spreadsheet program. These data must
consist of five columns including time, gas and water rates,
and gas and water cumulative production. The production
data usually originate in an ASCII text file that may be
imported and pasted into the observed data worksheet. Up to
500 rows of observed data may be input as shown in Fig. 6.
The User Interface. The spreadsheet program is used by
selecting reservoir parameters for history matching and/or
forecasting from drop-down menus on the main worksheet as
shown at the top of Fig. 7. All simulation runs are made using
a net pay of 100 ft. An input box for adjusting net pay is
provided at the top right of the main worksheet.
The parameters chosen by the user from the drop-down
menus are used for two purposes. First the specific simulation
run is identified, as shown at the top of the parameters
worksheet in Fig. 5. Then the production data for this
simulation are selected from the simulated data worksheet.
These simulated data are plotted and compared with actual
data from the observed data worksheet (Fig. 6).
Two graph options are available for plotting simulated and
observed data (Fig. 7). A drop-down menu allows selection of

production rate or cumulative production. Gas and water plots

of simulated and actual production data are presented on the
lower part of the main worksheet.
The x- and y-axes may be scaled as desired using standard
Excel features. For example, by double-clicking on the y-axis
and selecting scale, the y-axis scale may be changed and the
axis type (cartesian or logarithmic) may be specified. Hard
copy plots may be obtained by clicking just inside the graph
border and then clicking the print icon. Also, both plots may
be printed on the same page by simply printing the main
worksheet. Selecting landscape orientation results in a full 8
by 11-in page that gives the parameter selection and both
gas and water plots as shown in Fig. 7.
The selected simulated data may be exported to a new
spreadsheet by clicking on the Export Simulated Data button
(Fig. 7). This button executes a macro which converts the
simulated data to a monthly basis for detailed economic
analysis. The exported data are saved in a new spreadsheet
called Forecast.xls.
A macro is also provided for simple economic analysis.
Clicking on the Update Economics button (Fig. 7) executes a
macro which converts the data to a monthly basis and then
prepares an annual economic summary. On the economic
summary worksheet, the user may change net revenue interest
(NRI), gas price, well cost, monthly operating cost, and an
escalator that is applied to both gas price and operating cost.
An example is presented in the next section.
Application of the Software
We will demonstrate the use of the spreadsheet program using
production data from Antrim shale and New Albany shale
projects.
The first example (Fig. 8) is an Antrim shale project in
which the average well production rate increased to about 260
Mscf/D after two years. After 6 years of production, the
average well gas and water production rates were 125 Mcf/D
and 21 bbls/day, respectively. The parameters selected give a
good match of both gas and water production after three years.
Fig. 9 gives the cumulative production match and shows an
estimated 30-year recovery of about 700 MMscf. Fig. 10
gives the economic summary for this average well. For the
economic parameters specified, the net present value at a
discount rate of 10 percent (NPV10) is $237,000.
The second example (Fig. 11) is a group of New Albany
shale wells for which the initial gas production is about 35
Mscf/D. After 10 years, gas production has declined and is
fairly flat at 15 Mscf/D. These wells produced very little
water. Hence the match value of initial water saturation was
set at the minimum value of 30%. The effective gas
permeability and natural fracture spacing used to match the
data were 0.02 md and 20 ft, respectively. Fig. 12 shows the
cumulative production match and forecasts a 30-year recovery
of about 160 MMscf.

W. K. SAWYER, M. D. ZUBER, J. R. WILLIAMSON

Summary
The spreadsheet program described in this paper provides a
practical engineering method for analyzing production data
from shale reservoirs. It is simulator based but does not
require a reservoir simulator. The program may be used to
history match existing data and/or forecast 30-year production
for a specific set of reservoir properties. An economic
summary worksheet that is also provided may be used as a
screening tool for quickly evaluating the potential of new
wells or projects.
We have used spreadsheet programs for the Antrim Shale,
New Albany Shale, and New York Devonian Shale. Each
geologic setting requires a specially developed spreadsheet.
Hence, this is not a substitute for simulation. However, a
geologic-specific spreadsheet program can be extremely useful
for both history matching and estimating future production for
a wide range of reservoir properties.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank the GRI management and member
companies and the New York State Energy Research &
Development Authority for their contribution and support of
this work. We also wish to thank Mr. George W. Voneiff of
MGV Energy, Inc. (formerly with S. A. Holditch &
Associates) for his contribution to the original development of
the menus and dialog boxes used in this spreadsheet
application.
References
1. Chester, Thomas: Mastering Excel 5 for Windows,
SYBEX, Inc. Alameda, CA, 1995.
2. Shalegas, A General Purpose Three-Dimensional,
Three-Phase Petroleum Reservoir Simulator, S. A.
Holditch & Associates, Inc. Users Manual, Version 3.0,
March 1992.
3. Zuber, M. D., et al.: Reservoir Characterization and
Production Forecasting for Antrim Shale Wells: An
Integrated Reservoir Analysis Methodology, paper SPE
28606 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-28
September.
4. Zuber, M. D., et al.: Characterization of Michigan
Antrim Shale Reservoirs Based on Analysis of FieldLevel Data, paper SPE 29169 presented at the 1994
Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston,
WV, 8-10 November.

SPE 57439

SPE 57439 A SIMULATION SPREADSHEET PROGRAM FOR HISTORY MATCHING AND FORECASTING SHALE GAS PRODUCTION

Variable Simulation Parameters Currently Selected

a1137

550

80

0.01

Simulation File Namesand Input Parameters for all runs in this Database
FILE

Lf
(ft)

Kf
(md)

Km
(md)

Fs
(ft)

Pi
(psia)

Pay
(ft)

Area
(acres)

Swi
(frac)

FBHP
(psia)

Phim
(frac)

Phif
(frac)

VL
(scf/ton)

PL
(psia)

TOC
(%)

Hyd Frac Cond)

(md-ft)

a0001

100

1.00E-08

250

100

40

30

0.045

0.001

197

1200

a0002

100

1.00E-08

250

100

40

30

0.045

0.003

197

1200

1000

a0003
a0004

100
100

1
1

1.00E-08
1.00E-08

1
1

250
250

100
100

40
40

1
0.8

30
30

0.045
0.045

0.01
0.001

197
197

1200
1200

9
9

1000
1000

a0005

100

1.00E-08

250

100

40

0.8

30

0.045

0.003

197

1200

1000

a0006

100

1.00E-08

250

100

40

0.8

30

0.045

0.01

197

1200

1000

a0007
a0008

100
100

1
1

1.00E-08
1.00E-08

1
1

250
250

100
100

80
80

1
1

30
30

0.045
0.045

0.001
0.003

197
197

1200
1200

9
9

1000
1000

a0009

100

1.00E-08

250

100

80

30

0.045

0.01

197

1200

1000

Fig. 5 Worksheet showing parameters for the first nine simulations.

C l e a r T h e A c tu a l
P r o d u c ti o n D a ta

A c t u a l P r o d u c t io n ( U p t o 5 0 0 R o w s o f D a t a )
Cum

Gas

Gas

W a te r

T im e

R a te

Cum

R a te

W a te r
Cum

(D a y s)

(M sc f/ d )

(M sc f)

(S T B / d )

(S T B )

6 0 .8

1 6 .5

521

1 8 5 .7

6 ,0 4 5

9 1 .2

3 0 .2

1 ,4 3 9

2 1 9 .5

1 2 ,7 1 7

1 2 1 .6

4 8 .4

2 ,9 1 0

2 2 8 .3

1 9 ,6 5 8

152

7 7 .2

5 ,2 5 8

2 4 2 .5

2 7 ,0 3 1

1 8 2 .4

8 3 .6

7 ,7 9 8

2 0 5 .2

3 3 ,2 6 9

2 1 2 .8

1 1 8 .1

1 1 ,3 8 8

2 2 1 .7

4 0 ,0 0 8

2 4 3 .2

1 1 0 .7

1 4 ,7 5 4

1 9 2 .9

4 5 ,8 7 3

2 7 3 .6

1 2 1 .6

1 8 ,4 5 2

1 9 1 .6

5 1 ,6 9 8

304

8 7 .4

2 1 ,1 1 0

1 4 4 .6

5 6 ,0 9 3

3 3 4 .4

1 3 3 .5

2 5 ,1 6 8

1 5 5 .6

6 0 ,8 2 4

3 6 4 .8

1 4 5 .6

2 9 ,5 9 5

1 8 4 .8

6 6 ,4 4 1

3 9 5 .2

1 8 9 .2

3 5 ,3 4 5

2 2 2 .8

7 3 ,2 1 5

4 2 5 .6

2 1 2 .9

4 1 ,8 1 6

2 0 2 .9

7 9 ,3 8 4

456

2 2 1 .8

4 8 ,5 6 0

1 7 1 .3

8 4 ,5 9 2

4 8 6 .4

2 2 1 .9

5 5 ,3 0 7

1 5 7 .9

8 9 ,3 9 1

5 1 6 .8

2 0 8 .6

6 1 ,6 4 8

1 4 0 .2

9 3 ,6 5 3

5 4 7 .2

2 1 3 .5

6 8 ,1 3 7

1 4 0 .0

9 7 ,9 1 1

5 7 7 .6

2 3 0 .0

7 5 ,1 3 0

9 3 .9

1 0 0 ,7 6 6

608

2 2 6 .0

8 2 ,0 0 1

9 0 .9

1 0 3 ,5 2 9

6 3 8 .4

1 9 7 .7

8 8 ,0 1 2

9 3 .0

1 0 6 ,3 5 6

6 6 8 .8

2 2 4 .7

9 4 ,8 4 2

8 6 .9

1 0 8 ,9 9 9

6 9 9 .2

2 4 7 .7

1 0 2 ,3 7 3

1 0 7 .9

1 1 2 ,2 7 9

7 2 9 .6

2 6 3 .5

1 1 0 ,3 8 3

1 6 7 .5

1 1 7 ,3 7 2

Fig. 6 Observed data worksheet.

1000

W. K. SAWYER, M. D. ZUBER, J. R. WILLIAMSON

SPE 57439

S im u la tio n -B a s e d S h a le T y p e C u r v e s
S e l e c t y o u r r e s e r v o i r p r o p e r ti e s h e r e
A re a

Pi

Sw i

P h if

Kf

Fs

TOC

(a c r e s)

(p si a )

(% )

(fra c )

(m d )

(ft)

(% )









N et P ay:
120

fe e t

P r in t T h is P a g e

S e le c t Y o u r G ra p h in g O p tio n s H e re

E x p o rt S im u la te d D a ta

E x tr a T e x t o n G ra p h T itle :

E x a m p le N o . 1 (A n trim S h a le )
   
   



U P D ATE

Ite m T o G r a p h :

E C O N O M IC S

G a s P ro d u c ti o n R a te

W a te r P r o d u c ti o n R a te

E x a m p l e N o . 1 (A n tri m S h a l e )

E x a m p l e N o . 1 (A n tri m S h a l e )

1 ,0 0 0

1 ,0 0 0
A c tu a l

W a t e r Ra t e ( B BL /D

100

10

A c tu a l

100

S imu la te d

10

1
0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

T im e ( Y e a r s )
T im e ( Y e a r s )

Fig. 7 Main worksheet for selecting parameters for history matching.

S im u la t io n - B a s e d S h a le T y p e C u r v e s
S e l e c t y o u r r e s e r v o i r p r o p e r ti e s h e r e
A re a

Pi

Sw i

P h if

Kf

Fs

TOC

( a c r e s)

( p si a )

(% )

( fr a c )

(m d )

( ft )

(% )









N et Pay:
105

fe e t

P r in t T h i s P a g e

S e le c t Y o u r G r a p h in g O p tio n s H e r e

E x p o r t S im u la t e d D a t a

E x tr a T e x t o n G r a p h T itle :

E x a m p le N o . 1 ( A n tr im S h a le )
  

  

U PD ATE

I te m T o G r a p h :

E C O N O M IC S

G a s P r o d u c ti o n R a te
Ex a m p le N o . 1

W a te r P r o d u c ti o n R a te

(A n tr i m S h a l e )

Ex a m p le N o . 1

1 ,0 0 0

(A n tr i m S h a l e )

1 ,0 0 0
A c tu a l

(BBL

100

W ate r Rate

(M s c f/

S im u la t e d

G a s Ra te

G a s R a t e ( M s c f /d

S imu la te d

10

A c tu a l

100

S im u la t e d

10

1
0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

1
0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

T im e ( Y e a r s )
T im e ( Y e a r s )

Fig. 8 Example No. 1 history match of production rates.

8 .0

1 0 .0

SPE 57439 A SIMULATION SPREADSHEET PROGRAM FOR HISTORY MATCHING AND FORECASTING SHALE GAS PRODUCTION

S im u la t io n - B a s e d S h a le T y p e C u r v e s
S e l e c t y o u r r e s e r v o i r p r o p e r ti e s h e r e
A re a

Pi

(a c r e s)

(p si a )



Sw i

P h if

(% )

(f r a c )





Kf

Fs

(m d )



N et P ay:

TOC

(f t)

(% )

105

fe e t

P r in t T h is P a g e

S e le c t Y o u r G r a p h in g O p tio n s H e re

E x p o rt S im u la te d D a ta

E x tr a T e x t o n G r a p h T itle :

E x a m p le N o . 1 (A n trim S h a le )


 
  
 

 


U PD ATE

Ite m T o G r a p h :

E C O N O M IC S

G a s C u m u l a ti v e P r o d u c ti o n

W a te r C u m u l a ti v e P r o d u c ti o n

E x a m p l e N o . 1 (A n tr i m S h a l e )

E x a m p l e N o . 1 ( A n tr i m S h a l e )

1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0

1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0
A c tua l

1 0 0 ,0 0 0

S im u la te d

(M s c

(BBL

G as C u m

1 ,0 0 0

W ate r C u m

1 0 0 ,0 0 0

1 0 ,0 0 0

100

A c tua l

1 0 ,0 0 0

S im u la te d
1 ,0 0 0

100

10

10

1
0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

T im e ( Y e a r s )
T im e ( Y e a r s )

Fig. 9 Example No. 1 history match of cumulative production.

E n te r E c o n o m i c P a r a m e te r s
NRI

0 .8 7 5 0 0 0

W e ll C o s t

$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0

G a s P ric e

2 .5 0 0

O p C o s t/m o

$500

E s c a la to r

1 .0 0 5

F irs t Y e a r

2000

G r o ss
YEA R

NPV 10=

Net

$ 2 3 7 ,0 5 6

D i sc o u n te d

Gas

Gas

Gas

O p e r a ti n g

M sc f

M sc f

P ric e

C o st

Ne t Re ve n ue

C u m u l a ti v e

C u m u l a ti v e

Ne t Re ve n ue

D i sc o u n te d

Ne t Re ve n ue

10%

Ne t Re ve n ue

2000

28706

25118

2.500

6000

-1 4 3 2 0 5

-1 4 3 2 0 5

-1 3 0 1 8 6

-3 3 0 1 8 6

2001

41486

36300

2.513

6,030

85174

-5 8 0 3 1

70392

-2 5 9 7 9 4

2002

54637

47808

2.525

6,060

114657

56626

86143

-1 7 3 6 5 1

2003

51211

44810

2.538

6,090

107623

164250

73508

-1 0 0 1 4 3

2004

46341

40549

2.550

6,121

97293

261543

60411

-3 9 7 3 1

2005

39771

34800

2.563

6,152

83044

344587

46876

7145

2006

34471

30162

2.576

6,182

71514

416101

36698

43843

2007

30613

26786

2.589

6,213

63131

479232

29451

73294

2008

27699

24237

2.602

6,244

56814

536046

24094

97389

10

2009

25452

22271

2.615

6,275

51957

588003

20032

117421

11

2010

23705

20742

2.628

6,307

48201

636204

16894

134315

12

2011

22280

19495

2.641

6,338

45147

681351

14385

148700

13

2012

21004

18379

2.654

6,370

42410

723761

12285

160985

14

2013

20051

17544

2.667

6,402

40397

764158

10638

171622

15

2014

19137

16744

2.681

6,434

38455

802612

9206

180828

16

2015

18326

16036

2.694

6,466

36737

839350

7995

188823

17

2016

17610

15409

2.708

6,498

35224

874574

6969

195792

18

2017

16965

14844

2.721

6,531

33863

908437

6091

201883

19

2018

16379

14331

2.735

6,564

32630

941067

5335

207218

20

2019

15845

13864

2.748

6,596

31510

972577

4684

211902

21

2020

15358

13438

2.762

6,629

30490

1003066

4120

216022

22

2021

14908

13045

2.776

6,663

29551

1032617

3630

219652

23

2022

14495

12683

2.790

6,696

28688

1061305

3204

222856

24

2023

14110

12347

2.804

6,729

27889

1089194

2831

225687

25

2024

13750

12031

2.818

6,763

27140

1116335

2505

228192

26

2025

13415

11738

2.832

6,797

26446

1142781

2219

230411

27

2026

13101

11464

2.846

6,831

25796

1168577

1968

232379

28

2027

12806

11205

2.860

6,865

25187

1193763

1747

234125

29

2028

12526

10960

2.875

6,899

24607

1218371

1551

235676

30

2029

12264

10731

2.889

6,934

24069

1242440

1379

237056

708423

619870

1242440

Fig. 10 Example No. 1 economic summary.

W. K. SAWYER, M. D. ZUBER, J. R. WILLIAMSON

SPE 57439

S im u la tio n -B a s e d S h a le T y p e C u r v e s
S e l e c t y o u r r e s e r v o i r p r o p e r ti e s h e r e
A re a

Pi

Sw i

P h if

Kf

Fs

TOC

(a c r e s)

(p si a )

(% )

(fr a c )

(m d )

(ft)

(% )













N et Pay:
86

fe e t

P r in t T h is P a g e

S e le ct Y o u r G ra p h in g O p tio n s H e r e

E x p o r t S im u la te d D a ta

E x tr a T e x t o n G r a p h T itle :

E x a m p le N o . 2 (N e w A lb a n y S h a le )
 


 

UPDATE

Ite m T o G r a p h :

E C O N O M IC S

W a te r P r o d u c ti o n R a te

G a s P ro d u c ti o n R a te

E x a m p l e N o . 2 (N e w A l b a n y S h a l e )

E x a m p l e N o . 2 (N e w A l b a n y S h a l e )
0 .6

40

0 .5
( B B L /D

30
25
A c tu a l

20

W a te r Ra te

G a s Ra te

(M s c f/d

35

S imu la te d
15
10

0 .4

0 .3

A c tu a l
S imu la te d

0 .2

0 .1

5
0
0 .0

5 .0

1 0 .0

1 5 .0

2 0 .0

2 5 .0

3 0 .0

0 .0
0 .0

2 .0

4 .0

6 .0

8 .0

1 0 .0

1 2 .0

1 4 .0

T im e ( Y e a r s )
T im e ( Y e a r s )

Fig. 11 Example No. 2 history match of gas production rate.

G a s C u m u l a ti v e P r o d u c ti o n
Ex a m p le N o . 2

(N e w A l b a n y S h a l e )

1 8 0 ,0 0 0
1 6 0 ,0 0 0

(M s c

1 4 0 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0

Gas C u m

1 0 0 ,0 0 0
A c tu a l
8 0 ,0 0 0

S im u la te d

6 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
0
0 .0

5 .0

1 0 .0

1 5 .0

2 0 .0

2 5 .0

T im e ( Y e a r s )

Fig. 12 Example No. 2 history match of cumulative gas production.

3 0 .0